There is a clear distinction between two types of thinking; and they are far more different than night and day - for they are the difference between gratitude and pride, between good and evil.
In the study of the physical universe, this distinction can be drawn between science and scientism, or the worship of technology. For the purpose of technology is to harness the structure of the universe, not to know it per se; and science, though it is necessary for creating technology, by no means includes application as a necessity. Science is the search for knowledge, the map of the known discovered by explorers of the universe. Its purpose is liberal, not technical. And more importantly, this knowledge, and the technology derived therefrom, is not (read CSL's The Abolition of Man) for dominion over man.
By nature, by definition, technology is dependent upon science; if science is pursued for the purpose of creating technology, we go against the nature of both science and technology, and the result is a putrid mess (think of "Jewish science" rejected by Hitler, and so on).
The very same dichotomy is present in the humanities (as opposed to... the inhumanities? The siderealities?) - but on a clearer and even more insidious level. It is the thesis of modern "scholarship" that narrative or story is primarily of means of controlling others - of having power. Or more accurately, of domination. This is the driving premise of postmodern literary theory, historical theory, and so on... and it is among the greatest heresies to ever spring to death. It is the great and horrible evil infesting our universities today.
The classical - and sane, and human - literary theory is just like classical theory of physical science: that we write to find what is already there; to discover; to illuminate the soul. The poet, like the philosopher, intends to know himself and his world (or more of it).
What madmen were our fathers, that they listened to one who called all men liars? For the one that says this is by their own claim a liar. To believe the one who claims to be a liar before those who claim to be honest, on the basis of that lying liar's testimony, is madness. Indeed, whoever that liar is (but he is Satan, the accuser, the prince of liars) has pulled the greatest ad hominem in history (bar one). He has called the whole human race liars!
Another name for the ad hominem is "poisoning the well." Well, this ad hominem has poisoned not only the well, but the village well; making every historian a liar, the whole family of ancestors, the "democracy of the dead." Not even the dead are safe from defamation; and who shall defend them?
We shall.
The supreme irony is that these liars are liars by their own admission. They are forced by their false philosophy to slander honest men and honest women; but we do not slander them when we say they use what they can to pursue dominion over their fellow-men. The vast majority of people can feel this, vaguely, but have no words for it. They do not wish to be lied to; they desire the truth. If we but reveal the truth, no honest man or woman would choose lies. And we cannot live searching for truth without the virtue of gratitude, the enemy of pride.
As for the those who would still chose a world of liars and tyrants, those prideful savages, we may pray for them: but they are a brood of vipers, and the devil is their hindmost. We cannot change their mind by force or by trickery, for they live in a world of their own devising; it is hell.
-Christian Boyd
Carthago Delenda Est.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
A Language in which we may Communicate
What is the proper way to find truth?
The prominent dilemma of modern philosophies is the divide between perception and reality - a divorce of the internal and external worlds. The result is the dominance of two views: materialism and postmodernism.
Materialism says perception is capable of equating reality, but only insofar as perception is an illusion based on states in reality - mind is a function of matter. It annihilates language into the machine-response and animal-instinct which is the only "reality." Perception does not actually exist.
Postmodernism, on the other hand, says perception is itself reality, or the only knowable reality. Action is taken upon the entirely of sense-perception, but only upon that basis. Reality does not really exist - only perception.
Neither of these solutions are satisfying. They are literally "not enough." One illustration of what I mean: a language, by definition, cannot communicate unless the signifier and signified agree and are consistent among speakers. Words and the World - these two must be married in intimate fashion in order for any sort of rational society. But neither materialism or postmodernism can provide this full marriage of language and universe. Either the world makes language, or language the world - only one exists, the other is fiction and fairy-tale. This is the very language of the nihilists on both sides of this unholy duality.
So how can this problem be fixed? What view of perception and reality is rational, capable of supporting (among other things) a working language? What, in other words, is a complete language, a language that really is "about" the world?
Only a language which, instead of uncomfortably nestling these two opposites, is their mutual enemy - a language which accepts as real the person, and accepts as real the cosmos; one which marries perception and reality; so that perception is true and of a reality, and reality supports and corrects perception. When I name a thing, it is the thing itself that I name, and not merely my perception of that thing, or of things in general: the leaf I call a leaf really is a leaf, and can be discovered as such by every sense, is in essence and accident a leaf.
It is not easy to have a universe-perceiver in the universe, though - for if the person is to know the universe, the universe must also be within the person. How can the world be in the world? There must be something outside of the world in the world; this is the soul, of which the Philosopher said "man holds all things in his soul" and the wise king Solomon said "He has set eternity in their hearts."
This is the basis of the language we shall use; it is the only proper way to find truth. No other way may suffice, we have already seen what happens when the Word becomes flesh and dwells among us, but is rejected by His own: it is our present, damnable condition, this fleshly perdition, which so rots society.
So when I say a leaf, I mean a leaf. This is the simplest of truths; it is called a tautology, a thing today denied in the streets. It is also called a truism. The obvious thing which is not obvious.
I have said nothing which you did not already know.
Moresoon eventually.
-Christian Boyd
Carthago Delenda Est
The prominent dilemma of modern philosophies is the divide between perception and reality - a divorce of the internal and external worlds. The result is the dominance of two views: materialism and postmodernism.
Materialism says perception is capable of equating reality, but only insofar as perception is an illusion based on states in reality - mind is a function of matter. It annihilates language into the machine-response and animal-instinct which is the only "reality." Perception does not actually exist.
Postmodernism, on the other hand, says perception is itself reality, or the only knowable reality. Action is taken upon the entirely of sense-perception, but only upon that basis. Reality does not really exist - only perception.
Neither of these solutions are satisfying. They are literally "not enough." One illustration of what I mean: a language, by definition, cannot communicate unless the signifier and signified agree and are consistent among speakers. Words and the World - these two must be married in intimate fashion in order for any sort of rational society. But neither materialism or postmodernism can provide this full marriage of language and universe. Either the world makes language, or language the world - only one exists, the other is fiction and fairy-tale. This is the very language of the nihilists on both sides of this unholy duality.
So how can this problem be fixed? What view of perception and reality is rational, capable of supporting (among other things) a working language? What, in other words, is a complete language, a language that really is "about" the world?
Only a language which, instead of uncomfortably nestling these two opposites, is their mutual enemy - a language which accepts as real the person, and accepts as real the cosmos; one which marries perception and reality; so that perception is true and of a reality, and reality supports and corrects perception. When I name a thing, it is the thing itself that I name, and not merely my perception of that thing, or of things in general: the leaf I call a leaf really is a leaf, and can be discovered as such by every sense, is in essence and accident a leaf.
It is not easy to have a universe-perceiver in the universe, though - for if the person is to know the universe, the universe must also be within the person. How can the world be in the world? There must be something outside of the world in the world; this is the soul, of which the Philosopher said "man holds all things in his soul" and the wise king Solomon said "He has set eternity in their hearts."
This is the basis of the language we shall use; it is the only proper way to find truth. No other way may suffice, we have already seen what happens when the Word becomes flesh and dwells among us, but is rejected by His own: it is our present, damnable condition, this fleshly perdition, which so rots society.
So when I say a leaf, I mean a leaf. This is the simplest of truths; it is called a tautology, a thing today denied in the streets. It is also called a truism. The obvious thing which is not obvious.
I have said nothing which you did not already know.
More
-Christian Boyd
Carthago Delenda Est
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Lost! Oh, so Lost!
"Midway in the journey of our life
I came to myself in a dark wood,
for the straight way was lost."
(Dante, the Comedia I.1-3 Hollander translation)
The first thing to do, when we are lost, is to stop, calm ourselves, and try to get our bearings. In the dark wood, it is necessary to find the Son where He rises in the East. Providentially, it is now only a bit before Easter morning. So we know, somehow, what we desire.
I will assume, therefore, that no one reading this proposes that Goodness is subjective, or that it does not exist, or that we cannot find it. Our arguments are important, for our musings may lead us away from our goal, or towards it. It is a matter of deadly danger and supreme importance, for we must find the way out of the dark wood, and towards God, towards Goodness. Otherwise we die.
Now that we are calmed and sober, we must begin to ask the questions that orient us correctly. So what is this dark wood like? How did we get here? What is different from this place and what we desire, that is, the Good?
We must ask this question at the cosmic level, at the level of humanity, of the history of our civilization, of particular nations, of individual institutions or policies, and so on down to the smallest things. We must relate existence to the good or ideal, and know both of them, before we can understand the distance between and the path to bridge.
What then is the reality of the cosmos? What is the reality of the human condition? Let us begin there.
<<And, dear friends and readers, if I have missed anything, please tell it to me. I do not mean to attach the universe unaided, any more than I meant to be born unaided, unsupported. Do you disagree with my argument for methodology? Do I miss or misplace a premise? Argue it to me, to everyone! The purpose is to find the truth.>>
- Christian
Carthago Delenda Est.
I came to myself in a dark wood,
for the straight way was lost."
(Dante, the Comedia I.1-3 Hollander translation)
The first thing to do, when we are lost, is to stop, calm ourselves, and try to get our bearings. In the dark wood, it is necessary to find the Son where He rises in the East. Providentially, it is now only a bit before Easter morning. So we know, somehow, what we desire.
I will assume, therefore, that no one reading this proposes that Goodness is subjective, or that it does not exist, or that we cannot find it. Our arguments are important, for our musings may lead us away from our goal, or towards it. It is a matter of deadly danger and supreme importance, for we must find the way out of the dark wood, and towards God, towards Goodness. Otherwise we die.
Now that we are calmed and sober, we must begin to ask the questions that orient us correctly. So what is this dark wood like? How did we get here? What is different from this place and what we desire, that is, the Good?
We must ask this question at the cosmic level, at the level of humanity, of the history of our civilization, of particular nations, of individual institutions or policies, and so on down to the smallest things. We must relate existence to the good or ideal, and know both of them, before we can understand the distance between and the path to bridge.
What then is the reality of the cosmos? What is the reality of the human condition? Let us begin there.
<<And, dear friends and readers, if I have missed anything, please tell it to me. I do not mean to attach the universe unaided, any more than I meant to be born unaided, unsupported. Do you disagree with my argument for methodology? Do I miss or misplace a premise? Argue it to me, to everyone! The purpose is to find the truth.>>
- Christian
Carthago Delenda Est.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Straw May Feed a Flame
This is the text from my FB post. It's not a comprehensive or detailed manifesto, but I thought it best to note it down here for now, as FB is not a very permanent place to save it.
"Let's begin with the premise that America is in ruin, and is heading towards a more abyssal ruin. The question then becomes, shall we either abandon her like rats a sinking ship, or with desperate measures caulk the bottom of the "ship of state?"
If we wish to be sensible, with full consideration of history and of the nature of men, we would abandon ship. Swim to other shores, or build financial life-boats proof from the political chaos to ensue. We will be prepared for a new age, relatively safe and secure.
If we wish to be foolish, mad, and heroic in the full measure of a patriot, we will stay and fight. We will become true citizens; we will entreat our neighbors and admonish our officers; we will refuse to elect the avaricious man and the moral coward to govern us. We will defy history and condemn the inevitabilities of time.
In the end, our only hope is to be madmen. We will have to tilt at giants and yet win; for if we are not brave now, will our future peace be just? If we never fought for a hopeless cause, will we have surety in any cause henceforth? Our virtue or our vice may create the world in a hundred years. Are you so certain that you will live in a safe world, if it has been built by the deserters of a city?
No. Rome was not founded by those who, sad of heart and pining for comfort, left the ships of Aeneas. A just, safe, and good America will only belong to those who were not dismayed. The rest shall perish, even at long last and full of years, in the waste this side of Jordan."
-Christian Boyd
Carthago Delenda Est
"Let's begin with the premise that America is in ruin, and is heading towards a more abyssal ruin. The question then becomes, shall we either abandon her like rats a sinking ship, or with desperate measures caulk the bottom of the "ship of state?"
If we wish to be sensible, with full consideration of history and of the nature of men, we would abandon ship. Swim to other shores, or build financial life-boats proof from the political chaos to ensue. We will be prepared for a new age, relatively safe and secure.
If we wish to be foolish, mad, and heroic in the full measure of a patriot, we will stay and fight. We will become true citizens; we will entreat our neighbors and admonish our officers; we will refuse to elect the avaricious man and the moral coward to govern us. We will defy history and condemn the inevitabilities of time.
In the end, our only hope is to be madmen. We will have to tilt at giants and yet win; for if we are not brave now, will our future peace be just? If we never fought for a hopeless cause, will we have surety in any cause henceforth? Our virtue or our vice may create the world in a hundred years. Are you so certain that you will live in a safe world, if it has been built by the deserters of a city?
No. Rome was not founded by those who, sad of heart and pining for comfort, left the ships of Aeneas. A just, safe, and good America will only belong to those who were not dismayed. The rest shall perish, even at long last and full of years, in the waste this side of Jordan."
-Christian Boyd
Carthago Delenda Est
Like the Spring Returning
So once again I shall assay to write a blog again.
I think the appropriate thing to do after my recent statements on FB is to begin exploring and consolidating some sort of comprehensive political philosophy, in order to judge properly the current state of affairs and propose rational solutions to problems current and future. Additionally, research on current affairs (both American, Global, immediate and long-view) as well as the relevant history of the world. A bit of a tall order, but we've all got to do it sometime, and it's best to start early.
My intention is for the blog (in its new iteration) to be something like a forum for those people I know to contribute towards this "conspiracy" of sorts. Therefore, I want to keep comments focused on topic.
I'll interpose some humorous or off-topic posts as well, but probably another blog should be made for that purpose if there is a critical volume for that purpose.
If there's anything else to add, I'll address that in another post; please tell me in the comments.
Onward and upward, towards a true philosophy!
-Christian
Carthago Delenda Est
I think the appropriate thing to do after my recent statements on FB is to begin exploring and consolidating some sort of comprehensive political philosophy, in order to judge properly the current state of affairs and propose rational solutions to problems current and future. Additionally, research on current affairs (both American, Global, immediate and long-view) as well as the relevant history of the world. A bit of a tall order, but we've all got to do it sometime, and it's best to start early.
My intention is for the blog (in its new iteration) to be something like a forum for those people I know to contribute towards this "conspiracy" of sorts. Therefore, I want to keep comments focused on topic.
I'll interpose some humorous or off-topic posts as well, but probably another blog should be made for that purpose if there is a critical volume for that purpose.
If there's anything else to add, I'll address that in another post; please tell me in the comments.
Onward and upward, towards a true philosophy!
-Christian
Carthago Delenda Est
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)